OPINION & EDITORIAL
Vote no on living wage referendum
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- A security fee-for-all (December 11, 2007)
- Farewell, Chancellor (December 10, 2007)
- $$FC (December 6, 2007)
- In a bind (December 5, 2007)
- Entitlement Town (December 4, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Justice is served (November 3, 2005)
- Picking up the SLAC (October 25, 2005)
- Workin' hard for the money? (October 18, 2006)
- Cut them no SLAC (October 13, 2005)
- Bait and switch (December 2, 2003)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The second time, traditionally, hasn't been the charm. As far as this spring's living wage referendum is concerned, we hope the old adage holds.
After its fall effort at eliminating student control of segregated fees failed, the Student Labor Action Coalition (SLAC) is back. Unlike last time around, the organization appears to have garnered sufficient petition signatures to place a referendum on the ballot in ASM's spring election next week. The measure seeks to impose a living wage standard of over $10 per hour for employees at campus Union and recreational sports facilities, which will inevitably lead toward higher segregated fees.
SLAC's loopy logic prompts us to offer this simple bit of advice: vote "No."
While the imposition of a living wage seems noble in the abstract, its implications need to be considered. Do students scooping Babcock Ice Cream at Memorial Union need a living wage? Does the student swiping IDs at the SERF deserve a wage hike?
Most importantly, should all students be forced to shoulder an even higher segregated fee burden in the wake of massive tuition hikes? They should not.
SLAC, high on its own questionable ideology, fails to see that its altruism for a select few will also harm every student on campus on a different level. We fail to see this referendum as anything other than an extension of SLAC's typical tomfoolery, a modus operandi based more on sophomoric stunts than substance.
Furthermore, the student judiciary struck down last fall's measure, which raises questions of how the current referendum — it's seemingly identical twin, could possibly pass muster under case law.
Vote "No" — your tuition and fees are high enough already.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 2:40am):
"it's twin"?! "IT''''''''S TWIN?!?!?!??!"
Badger Herald, go back to elementary English. For shame, for shame.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 12:44pm):
"Furthermore, the student judiciary struck down last fall's measure, which raises questions of how the current referendum -- it's seemingly identical twin, could possibly pass muster under case law."
The SJ decision was questionable at best--the case originally came about because of a technicality around how it was placed on the ballot, not the content itself. The Chief Justice has since admitted the decision was a mistake, and conservative constitutional scholar Donald Downs has supported the legality of the Initiative.
There is no real proof that this initiative will in fact take away student fee autonomy, or even raise segregated fees for that matter. The Herald is relying on scare tactics and invented truths and is pitting two goods against each other--seg fees vs. a non-poverty wage--to cover for their own hidden, anti-poor agenda.
The Herald raises the issue of student workers being paid more. Let me raise a similar question: if you're a student worker trying to pay tuition (or even bar tabs for that matter), do you want a higher wage? Even if you don't work for one of these departments, it will create a prevailing wage phenomenon which will raise wages for other student workers.
SLAC seeks not to take more money out of your pockets. Instead, they want you to be compensated better for your hard work. They want you to have more time to study, so that the education you're working so hard to finance doesn't go to waste.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 3:34pm):
The question I keep asking: Where is the money going to come from?
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 4:14pm):
I would love to make $10.23/hour, but reality is: I don't really EARN that much by sitting a a library desk, checking out books.
Someone brings up bar tabs. Is it really the entire campus population's reponsibility to allow to provide people spending money for bar tabs? That's the silliest thing I have ever heard.
SLAC is being ridiculously outlandish if they think that $10.23 required at the Unions, Rec. Sports, UHS, etc. will then make everyone else raise their minimum wage.
Madison can't even get the minimum wage in this city about 7.50. Does SLAC really think that the city and university and state and country will follow suit if this initiative passes??
Anonymous (March 24, 2006 @ 11:07am):
"I don't really EARN that much"
Yer missing the whole SLACer point here - you should paid based on how much you NEED, not based on what you deserve (based on output, value of service, etc.).
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs
Karl Marx
Then of course any rational person spends their time enumerating and proving their NEEDS, while downplaying or hiding any abilities. It hasn't really worked anywhere I know of.
Anonymous (March 24, 2006 @ 1:23pm):
"Where is the money going to come from?"
Simple, it comes from the pockets of those who will no longer have jobs.
Anonymous (March 24, 2006 @ 6:10pm):
"Yer missing the whole SLACer point here - you should paid based on how much you NEED, not based on what you deserve"
Hey Joe McCarthy, why don't you just call SLAC "communist" and get it over with?
Those who benefit most from the exploitation of workers have always been the first to throw out the communist label, and will label as communist anyone who seeks a freer and better life.
"When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara (Brasilian priest)
Anonymous (March 25, 2006 @ 2:56pm):
How is it at the very least not even a socialist idea that everyone should be paid a certain wage even if they work done does not require that wage?
Anonymous (March 25, 2006 @ 4:50pm):
"anyone who seeks a freer and better life"
Go ahead, just don't stick your hand in my pocket when you need money.
PS. The "the exploitation of workers" seemed most brutal when the Nomenklatura were in charge of the USSR - in the US this would be like the union leaders who live as CEOs while whining about the plight of the workers.
Anonymous (March 26, 2006 @ 1:09pm):
"But when I ask why the poor have no food..."
Ridiculous statement in the USA where the big problem aomoung the poor is obesity.
Anonymous (March 26, 2006 @ 4:20pm):
It's funny how quickly those who don't have to work for their education will dismiss the needs of those who do.
I always find it funny when people say that some people shouldn't spend money on recreational activities, like visiting bars. You're right, they should just study and work until they go insane.
Maybe you should pass a mandate that all those receiving financial aid should be removed from the university.
That would decrease your tuition, taxes, and the cost of your McDonalds. Try to look at the big picture, instead of just yourself.
Anonymous (March 27, 2006 @ 1:11am):
"There is no real proof that this initiative will in fact take away student fee autonomy, or even raise segregated fees for that matter."
Sure there's proof, the fact that the Union gets money from two places: seg fees and food sales. So if the money has to come from somewhere, its from one or the other or both.
Anonymous (April 5, 2006 @ 2:38am):
I'd rather pay what, an extra $9 a semester to make sure my fellow peers are getting a decent amount to afford tuition/housing then pay, some $90+ a semester to start a non-beneficial construction project.
